Brigham Young on Bible Translation

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

How presumptuous of Mormon to violate the 8th AoF.

Funny, but the logic doesn't really work in the reverse.

In any case, thanks for the article, that was a very interesting read. I will be interested to see what comes next.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Who are you referring to as "apostates?" Do you really think we're not aware of the passages you cited? Seriously? I, for one, had them in mind when reading the post.

And no one's claiming Robinson is modifying the 8th AoF (that is, unless you think he's trying to sneak his own version into a new edition of the scriptures or something?)

And no one's claiming it's a "new concept."

Maybe you need a vacation, Tex?

At least you could tone down the contempt, the knee-jerk condemnation, and the wild attributions. We're having a nice thread here. Need I remind you that this is in the religious studies forum?

If I am to be repeatedly referred to inaccurately and unfairly as a "mullah", the least you can do is gracefully accept an appellation that describes you equally as effectively. Nicht wahr?

Or did you fail to notice that little jab by Chino? Hmm?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

If I am to be repeatedly referred to inaccurately and unfairly as a "mullah", the least you can do is gracefully accept an appellation that describes you equally as effectively. Nicht wahr?

Or did you fail to notice that little jab by Chino? Hmm?

SEIQ is certainly not even close to being an apostate, but you demonstrate some attributes of a being a fundamentalist, which may be euphemistically referred to as a mullah. The interpretations you lay bare resemble those of fundamentalists and do not appear to be nuanced or layered.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

If I am to be repeatedly referred to inaccurately and unfairly as a "mullah", the least you can do is gracefully accept an appellation that describes you equally as effectively. Nicht wahr?

Or did you fail to notice that little jab by Chino? Hmm?

You think describing someone colloquially as a "mullah" is the same as declaring people apostates?

In the same breath that you call people apostates you object to being "unfairly" referred to as a "mullah?"

You're acting insane.

Moreover, none of this is appropriate in the religious studies thread.

And you didn't address any of my comments in substance.

Maybe you should take the day off of CG, Tex.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

You think describing someone colloquially as a "mullah" is the same as declaring people apostates?

In the same breath that you call people apostates you object to being "unfairly" referred to as a "mullah?"

I was trying to make a point that each label is meaningless and inaccurate. You apparently got the point, and missed it, simultaneously. Why don't we stop the name-calling, religion and religious studies threads alike?

Personally, I don't think you all can resist the frequent use of the term mullah. Thus, if the term apostate gets under your skin, get used to it.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

And you didn't address any of my comments in substance.

Chino posted the article as if us "mullahs" would be surprised to learn that there are potential flaws in the Book of Mormon record. I was countering that I am not surprised to learn this, as it was written by imperfect men who acknowledged that eventuality.

As to the Robinson quote, some context would be helpful. I don't read him, so I don't know what he meant when he said it.

[jay santos]

I'm surprised something innocuous as JS slipping in KJV portions of Bible into BOM got people going so much.

If you take a few premises: JS is a prophet, BOM is true, church is true, and then apply an Occam's razor concept of seeking the simplest, most plausible explanation, the KJV insertion theory is definitely it. It also satisfactorily answers some other questions, such as the Moroni/Paul issue I brought up while back.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I'm surprised something innocuous as JS slipping in KJV portions of Bible into BOM got people going so much.

If you take a few premises: JS is a prophet, BOM is true, church is true, and then apply an Occam's razor concept of seeking the simplest, most plausible explanation, the KJV insertion theory is definitely it. It also satisfactorily answers some other questions, such as the Moroni/Paul issue I brought up while back.

I don't disagree that it is logical--in fact it's one the primary lines of attack made by anti-Mormons and it resonates for that very reason. The problem is Occam's razor rarely works when we're talking about the supernatural. There's no short-circuit logic that works when trying to explain the parting of the Red Sea, the raising of Lazarus from the dead, or the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ to a 14-year-old boy.

I'm still confused how people are escaping the inevitable conclusion that if Joseph lifts passages from the KJV, it violates the idea of a divine translation, not to mention creating all kinds of problems in understanding what the Nephites did and did not have access to.

And of course, there is no evidence whatsoever, outside of the too-frequently-cited Occam, to suggest that's what he did. No account of which I'm aware (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) alludes to this behavior on Joseph's part during the translation.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

I was trying to make a point that each label is meaningless and inaccurate. You apparently got the point, and missed it, simultaneously. Why don't we stop the name-calling, religion and religious studies threads alike?

Personally, I don't think you all can resist the frequent use of the term mullah. Thus, if the term apostate gets under your skin, get used to it.



Chino posted the article as if us "mullahs" would be surprised to learn that there are potential flaws in the Book of Mormon record. I was countering that I am not surprised to learn this, as it was written by imperfect men who acknowledged that eventuality.

As to the Robinson quote, some context would be helpful. I don't read him, so I don't know what he meant when he said it.

So you were calling people apostates thinking it would be "meaningless?"

And then you're turning around and telling me that if I don't like it I need to "get used to it?"

And you wonder why people object to your manner?

"Apostate" is in a whole different sphere from the way we informally use the term "mullah" around here. Calling someone an apostate is serious business, and you trying to say that you meant it to be meaningless rings hollow. I rarely use the "mullah" term anyway.

I don't think the religion or religious studies forums are the problem.

I'm glad you're aware of the textual issues that Chino pointed out. I wasn't making assumptions about what you do or don't know.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm still confused how people are escaping the inevitable conclusion that if Joseph lifts passages from the KJV, it violates the idea of a divine translation, not to mention creating all kinds of problems in understanding what the Nephites did and did not have access to.

How do you necessarily reach that conclusion? I don't.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't disagree that it is logical--in fact it's one the primary lines of attack made by anti-Mormons and it resonates for that very reason. The problem is Occam's razor rarely works when we're talking about the supernatural. There's no short-circuit logic that works when trying to explain the parting of the Red Sea, the raising of Lazarus from the dead, or the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ to a 14-year-old boy.

I'm still confused how people are escaping the inevitable conclusion that if Joseph lifts passages from the KJV, it violates the idea of a divine translation, not to mention creating all kinds of problems in understanding what the Nephites did and did not have access to.

And of course, there is no evidence whatsoever, outside of the too-frequently-cited Occam, to suggest that's what he did. No account of which I'm aware (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) alludes to this behavior on Joseph's part during the translation.

Disagree with your take on Occam, even with supernatural events. If you include God's power as a premise, then Red Sea parting, etc. have extremely simple, logical explanations.

What is your theory on how JS translated the KJV portions of BOM? Were he and the KJV translaters equally inspired and came to the final English versions completely independently?

Also, I guess I am dumb on this because I don't understand all the anti-Mormon arguments, but why would anti-Mormons attack JS for inserting KJV language in BOM and why would LDS be concerned about this attack? It feels like you're kicking against an obvious solution to this question just because you're worried it's unpopular.